Learning to be a Christian on Social Media

Post navigation

Christianity and ISIS: Toward a Better World Pt. 2

In light of the outrage of ISIS and our own leaders’ moral inability to fight back, Americans face a fundamental alternative.

One choice: To unplug the television and continue to “hope” for “change.”
Another choice: To identify the proper moral code and to defend that code with all vigor.

A defense of America starts with a moral self-examination:
“By what right do we judge ISIS? Aren’t they doing what they think is right? Can we say our worldview is right and the worldview of ISIS is wrong? Would it be wrong for America to go to war? What degree of war is acceptable?”

Christians have failed to give a compelling answer. Even neo-conservatives cannot stomach the idea of a fully self-interested attack upon America’s enemies. So America would rather negotiate itself toward a slow demise.

There is a proper response to ISIS and to the nations which stand behind it.

But this answer is not available to America’s leaders—even the Christian ones. The answer is, as Leonard Peikoff so eloquently argued, to “end states that sponsor terrorism.”

We hide behind the misconception that, since terrorists function as individuals, we can only fight them individually. But the actions of terrorists are the moral responsibility of those nations which harbor them. Those nations have the resources to stop the executions and the bombings. That they do not stop them, is evidence of either collaboration or consent. Or else these ruling powers are indeed unable to contain the violence of their citizens, in which case they have no business being in power.

The end of terrorism in the Middle East is not complicated.

The United States must commit to ending the governments which abet it. We must send a message to the leaders of every country in the world: If you do not stop your people from attacking our people, we will. And you will not be around to see it, because you will no longer be in power.

If such a message were received and believed, it would not take a single week for the tin-can dictators of the world to put an end to the terrorist activities within their borders. But how can the United States send such a message with credibility? Again and again we have demonstrated that we want a solution without a display of force. We want “peace-talks.”

With a man or a nation of violence, there is no such thing as a peace-talk.

Here is what the end of ISIS looks like: An overwhelming display of force by the United States against any nation known to have supported ISIS and a commitment to do the same until the message is believed.

But we will not do this. Why? To understand the issue we must look further at the concept holding back both the liberals and the neoconservatives: the moral code of self-sacrifice.